|
A copy of the Letter I sent to the Attorney General |
|
|
|
|
Saturday, 31 January 2004 |
Dear Lord Goldsmith,
I was surprised but pleased to see you announce that the many cases of cot
death, pronounced murder by the judiciary,require review.
Can I point you in the direction of victims of false allegations of sex
abuse, like myself? The law currently enables conviction without any
evidence or proof whatsoever. No DNA, witnesses, photos, medical or
forensic corroboration need support an allegation. Police are encouraged
to 'discover' similar claims in order to back up the story and, as you've
seen in the Clark/Cannings cases, they are prone to become 'tunnel
visioned', to say the least.
The role of the media encouraging such headline stories is supported by the
'no anonymity for the accused but total privacy for the accuser'rule.
Motives can range from greed for compensation (or tabloid fees) to revenge
or a desire for attention or sympathy (please read Earl Howe's speech from
November 2002, available through Claire Curtis Thomas MP). False
allegations can go back years (32 in my case, initially); impossible to
prove innocence, which ought not, in law, be necessary. And it
is'standard' practice' for the judge in the case to allow the prosecution
to alter the dates on the indictment, as happened to me in 4 of the 6
counts, after the defence proves innocence in the original time frames,
without allowing the defendant a single second to prepare or present
alternative alibis for the later period.
The appalling cot death fiasco (5000 possible cases? 54 mothers in prison
for crimes that were never committed?) does not seem to be examining just
how the police, lawyers and trial could allow so many miscarriages of
justice over so many years. Dare I suggest the field of false or
exaggerated allegations is an even larger area?
There are hundreds of men in prison now who are innocent of such charges
and many thousands more who have served their time or chose to kill
themselves rather than face such shame. If justice is truly your purpose,
you must please order a review of these similar miscarriages of justice.
And examine the institutionalised immorality that allows police to bend the
rules and lawyers to stretch the truth so the poor jurors are no longer
tricked into giving wrong verdicts that produce better headlines and
increased convictions but also gross unfairness.
Best wishes
Jonathan King
|
